It's on page 49. This is in the "public space" section of their handout.
This is what was in the TIF presentation about public space and what TIF would be paying for:
First, it listed three components of the project with public space being one of them, and this is what they listed.
Then, they provide a map with "vehicle and ped" entrances and private dining areas.
Then, they say the TIF will pay for the following public access items.
Can you make heads or tails of any of this? Where is the public space we are paying for and what are we not paying for. Are we paying for the section labeled "vehicle and ped access"? And are we paying for the dining areas? How did they determine what the public access money is for? And how much square footage is it? And what exactly are we paying for?
To add to the confusion/frustration, they are proposing that they have the right to close off portions of the public space when they have large events and mostly, that will all get determined "later". I don't think that is a "later" issue if we're going to be making a TIF decision. We should have the details of that agreement today. I have to admit, I looked for the PUD language, but after opening numerous pdf's I didn't find it. I guess I have succumbed to the "bury them in last minute paper" strategy. If I find it, I'll post it here.
I ask these questions because part of what the plan commission will be taking testimony on tonight is the changes to the 1965 ordinance to allow for us to use TIF to support the project, which is primarily going to be used for the open spaces.
Shiva,
ReplyDeleteI hope you're following this. Don't overlook the 6,000 sq. foot condo nonsense either.
Brenda,
You've done us a real service with the blog.
Anything related to the waterfront will primarily benefit the Edgewater's lakefront bar. Hammes Co. should pay a much bigger share of the cost.
ReplyDeleteHow many times will the average Madisonian descend the narrow stairs to the lake just to hang around on the "narrow, not very nice" (UDC member's words) path directly under a big wall of hotel windows?
The stairs will mostly be used to get to the Edgewater's bar.
The same goes for ADA access to the lakefront.
ReplyDeleteADA is a code requirement that any new development has to follow. Most of the lakefront users will be Edgewater customers.
According to the Feb. 8, 2010 City Staff Report (Brenda provided a link to the report the other day under the blog heading "JFC - New Materials") on page 18 of the report, staff summarizes the agreement Hammes has proposed as to the so-called "public" space:
ReplyDelete"However, the applications materials also note that the developer will have the sole right to book the public and private events in the public spaces, including 'major events', which may cause certain public spaces to be closed or limited to the general public."
According to this same report (p. 18), the only thing that will remain open to the public are the stairs down to bar.
The TIF request needs to be rejected, if not for the simple fact that the developer revised his plans and did not change the amount of TIF requested.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think I have ever contributed to a blog before, but I wanted to point out that part of the current pier that is taken in and out each year is referred to as a “dining platform” by the DNR. They say once the project starts that has to be removed because they do not permit that kind of a structure. Accordingly, the “dining platform” should not be included in the public space computation.
ReplyDeleteWith 13+ acres in James Madison Park only two short blocks away to the east, and another 2,500 feet of lake frontage as well as six miles of uninterrupted public access lakeshore beginning at the Union and running all the way to Shorewood only six blocks to the west, Mansion Hill and the Langdon neighborhood has unprecedented public lakeshore access. In addition it has the street ends and the public access in front of the Edgewater and on top of it, albeit, not all that great.
...
I thought I had seen more detail somewhere . . . but can't find what I thought I saw . . .
ReplyDeleteIf anyone was clamoring for lakeshore access, it should be the neighbors. Why aren’t the neighbors interested? It is because they understand how people use the lakeshore and what it really is. It is okay to go down and have a cocktail on an area that is going to be a lot smaller than it currently is. As a matter of fact, it can be very pleasant. But let’s be realistic. The public benefit of what is being provided is minimal.
ReplyDeleteThe view and visual compatibility is what people are really interested in and in that regard this project has a long way to go.
Another point on the size of Edgwater lobbying by Hammes, the number of Hammes's lobbyist is actually 17 (not 14, as earlier reported in the comments section of Brenda's "Lengthy Modnay Morning Round-Up.")
ReplyDeleteIndeed, without including *any* meeting that took place in January or February 2010 (which are not reportable yet), Hammes' lobbyists have met with the Mayor, City Staff and Alders a total of 204 times. Again, 204 times, not inlcuding the last month of meetings.
See for yourself: http://www.cityofmadison.com/Clerk/documents/LandmarkX-01-10Exp.pdf
The correct Hammes lobbyist link is:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cityofmadison.com/Clerk/documents/LandmarkX01-10Exp.pdf
Dear Fred Mohs,
ReplyDeleteThere is a rumor out there that when the Hammes project falls apart (with your helping of course) that you are waiting in the wings to take ownership. Will you Fred Mohs swear that you will never have a direct or indirect ownership of the Edgewater property? Thank you.
Actually, I'd be pleased if Mr. Mohs would step up and develop the site. At least we'd be assured that the result would be connected-to-reality.
ReplyDeleteWhat we see now are whack-a-mole antics.
6000 sq foot condos? Easement encroachments? 17 lobbyists? Zero public space?
Every time Brenda finds a new doc. this project looks worse.
If it looked like Fred Mohs scared off any potential developer of the Edgewater site and was able to buy the property at a fire sale price then I would have a great deal of concern about that. The city process should not be manipulated for private gain. This is true even for Mr. Mohs.
ReplyDeleteMr. Mohs could end this speculation about his motives by swearing an oath on this forum that he will not directly benefit by the Hammes proposal being rejected and that he will not in the future have a direct or indirect ownership of the Edgewater property.
Oh dear, am I going to have to reconsider anonymous comments?
ReplyDeleteIs there no possibility that Mr. Mohs actually has a valid point?
ReplyDeleteIt is not obvious (look at the pictures) that the project is too freaking big?
Is it wrong to challenge the develop-at-any-expense politicians? (and by the way: don't 17 lobbyists make you wonder what the heck is going on?)
Do you think the TIF concept is getting major abuse? (hint: think 6000 sq ft condos)
I think a Madison based ultra-luxury hotel is a fine thing. But it's not so fine I'd let it corrupt the civic process.
Brenda Konkel why would you now question having anonymous comments? You and others on your blog have engaged in a great deal of speculation about the motives of those who support Hammes project.
ReplyDeleteBrenda if the Hammes project is rejected and Fred Mohs ends up personally benefiting, will you acknowledge your culpability in being a tool of Mr. Republican?
While trying to catalog all the deceptive pictures in Hammes 2-4-10 submittal to the Plan Commission (Brenda has link -page 49- above), pdf page 24 struck me as particularly odd.
ReplyDeleteThe page title is "Improved Transportation"
and it says "The Edgewater can showcse Madison's commitment to innovative means of transit."
The page shows pictures of a tour boat on a canal, of motorcycles, people riding bicycles and walking, and even a horse drawn carriage.
What on earth does the Edgewater have to do with a canal boat, motorcycles or improved transit?
Only a rookie alder and Mayor Dave would actually expect us to buy this nonsense.
I have questioned having anonymous comments all along and I have shut them off during periods of inflammatory comments, and I said when I opened them up this was an experiment. I have had to erase comments where Bridget was called names and I've had to delete other comments in the past. I would love it if everyone would act like civil adults and I didn't have to worry about it. And making people use their names greatly increases the civility.
ReplyDeleteBrenda, how is this speculation about Mr. Mohs motives any worse than the speculation by you and others about various supporters of the Edgewater project? You have lost me here.
ReplyDeleteWhy doesn't Fred Mohs just take a vow to never have an ownership interest in the Edgewater property and end the speculation about his motives? That seems simple enough.
Brenda, are you saying this is not a legitimate line of inquirey? Is Fred Mohs not a public figure in terms of this very public debate?
Brenda, why are you covering for Fred?
How is this uncivil? I have seen this concern raised about Mohs elsewhere. It seems like an obvious concern.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Mohs should put this matter to rest by making the pledge.
BTW, I am against the current Edgewater proposal.
The poster ranting about Fred Mohs sounds frustrated.
ReplyDeleteShe/he's right that the city process shouldn't be manipulated for private gain. But unseemly manipulation is exactly what has engaged many folks who wouldn't otherwise care about the Edgewater development.
The Hammes Co. and its 17 lobbyists, Mayor Dave, Alders Maniaci, Bruer, Clear, Bidar-Sielaff and others have set an extremely short time for the entire approval process fro just this one project. As of last week, the list of approvals still needed is as long as it was in August. Nevertheless, they want to wrap it the whole thing up in two weeks.
The three ring circus they have created - where Urban Design hands it to Planning before approval; where the TIF coordinator makes substantial mistakes and says it's a result of not having enough time; Committee meetings to the wee hours; last minute submittals to committees - certainly helps Hammes.
There are lots of things - TIF for Public Access that is actually private; 6000 sq ft condos on the two top floors that are exempt from residential shoreline setback rules; a huge dining pier that won't happen; deceptive claims and renderings - that Hammes and the mayor would rather not expose to the light of day.
Have we too few adults on the common council to stop the circus?
Unless there is evidence that Fred Mohs in the past has opposed another developer's project and then came to own the property I believe it is unfair to ask him to make such a pledge. Brenda, very little gets past you. Do you know of any case where Fred Mohs has whipped up opposition against another developer's project to see it fail and then ended up owning the same property?
ReplyDeleteThe owner of the Malt House really missed the boat when he applied for permission to put a couple of picnic tables outside for his customers. He should have applied for TIF funding to purchase the abandoned parking lot next door and landscape it as "public space" complete with picnic tables and a walk-up bar.
ReplyDelete"cough" Klinke Cleaners "cough" "cough"
ReplyDeleteThe plan commission is on the verge of approving the amendment to shoreline zoning that exempts non-residential development (Edgewater) from residential shoreline zoning setback rules.
ReplyDeleteBut the new Edgewater includes two floors of residential condos at the top of the new tower.
So, a person that wants to build a house, a condominium tower or a big apartment building near the lake has to follow residential shoreline setback rules.
But in the special case of the Edgewater, the normal rules for residential shoreline setbacks will not apply even though the residential condos are a significant part of the building.
The Edgewater may have up to 12 condominium units and the units may be 6000 sq ft in size or larger. Mansion Hill indeed.
So developer Bob Dunn and other Hammes partners, say Stuart Zandra could each own and live in a fancy 6000+ sq ft condo 120 feet above the water, that is closer to the shoreline than would be allowed for any other new residence in Madison, whether it be a house, condo or apartment.
As the Plan Commission began taking public comment prior to shoreline setback debate, Chair Nan Fey said repeatedly to the public that the issue was about a general change to the zoning code and not about the Edgewater project. She said if they were there to speak about Edgewater they would have a chance after the debate about the zoning code.
ReplyDeleteBut then the entire discussion by the commission about the shoreline setback change was about how to change shoreline setback requirements specifically for the Edgewater project. Spot zoning for Edgewater.
Does this bait and switch constitute an open meeting violation?
More ironic, is that Nan said it wasn't about the Edgewater, then voted to break the tie to move the project foward. :S
ReplyDeleteSpeaker just pointed out that shoreline zoning amendment they just passed would allow the NEXT addition to the Edgewater to need only a 8 foot setback from the lake.
ReplyDeleteBrenda,
ReplyDeleteDo you know who voted for and agin shoreline change?
Against: Kerr, Basford, Olson, Bowser
ReplyDeleteFor: Schumacher, Cnare, Boll, Sundquist
Tie breaker: Fey
Not voting/Alternates: Gruber, Heifitz
For: Boll, Cnare, Fey, Schumacher, Sundquist
ReplyDeleteAgainst: Basford, Bowser, Kerr, Olsen
The motion wasn't the same as Clear proposed, which had no specific setback. This would allow existing buildings to be expanded using their current setbacks, instead of being governed by the average setback of 10 surrounding buildings. Any proposal for expansion would still have to go before the Plan Commission for conditional use permits.
It is fairly clear that the anonymous commenters are the same person pretending to have a discussion about Fred Mohs.
ReplyDeleteMohs (and Konkel's) silence on the possibility that he will financially benefit from opposing the Edgewater project is troubling.
ReplyDeleteBrenda will you call on Fred Mohs to make a public pledge that he will not have a future ownership stake in the Edgewater project if he is successful in derailing the Hammes proposal?
BTW, Mohs did do exactly this to the Klinke family and a couple that owned a home out on the west side. But Brenda won't tell you about that.
I have no freaking clue if Fred will benefit, but let's pretend you are right and that is Fred's devious plan, do you think the Faulkners and NGL would sell to Fred if he wanted to buy it after he allegedly led the opposition to the project.
ReplyDeleteI'll make you a deal, you tell me who you are and what your interests are, and I'll call Fred and ask him.
By the way, I have no clue what Fred did to the Klinke family. It might surprise you to know, I don't know everything, and quite frankly, it's irrelevant, because, once again, THIS ISN'T ABOUT FRED!!!! To say that dismisses all the neighbors and Madison residents who are concerned about what it means for their historic district and their property, those who care about the environment and the waterfront setback, those who care about the TIF and the tax payer rip off for "public spaces" and the decimation of the city process. But, that's the strategy, isn't it.
I could care less what some anonymous poster thinks about Fred. How about we stick to the issues, not the personalities?
I really enjoyed watching Fred Mohs catch Bob Dunn with his pants down at last week's Urban Design commission meeting.
ReplyDeleteApparently, Dunn has been less than forthcoming with Urban Design about any discussions with the DNR about the Grand Pier he keeps showing in pretty pictures.
Mr. Mohs told the commissioners that Dunn had actually spoken to two DNR attorneys last Spetember who had told Dunn that the large dining pier wouldn't fly.
At least one member seemed visibly upset to learn that Dunn had never told the commission about this important information, even though they'd been about the status of the pier for months.
Dunn response to the commission was - Santa Claus exists. I'm not kidding, that's what he said.
Thanks for fighting the good fight Mr. Mohs.
Brenda you asked " do you think the Faulkners and NGL would sell to Fred if he wanted to buy it after he allegedly led the opposition to the project?" If Mohs has made it clear that he has gamed the city approval process to such a degree that all other buyers are scared off, then yes they will sell to Fred Mohs. Once again study up on the couple who recently sold their single family home to him after Mohs led the opposition to the Klinke project on Gammon road.
ReplyDeleteYou state that this is not about Fred Mohs. It seems that Mohs and others have placed him at the center of the opposition. Do you deny that? Also, it seems that Mohs could end speculation that he is drumming up opposition so that he can gain ownership of the Edgewater property on the cheap by just publicly pledging that he will never have a future financial interest in the property if the Hammes proposal fails. That would go a long way in removing the shadow that now hangs over those that oppose the Edgewater project.
Brenda, why don't you help by calling on Fred Mohs to make this public pledge? Do you not agree that it would look icky if Mohs did end up being the Edgewater property owner?
Finally, my job in local government would be in danger if I did not post anonymously. I and most others do not have the luxury that you have in not having job oversight. I hope you understand.
Let me know who you are off the record and I'll make the call and post the results. Local government employees and people who would get in trouble at their jobs is one of the reasons I left the anonymous comments despite my better judgment.
ReplyDeleteThe Mayor made this about Fred Mohs from day one! Originally he was in opposition because "Fred would never allow it", it was the first thing out of his mouth. My only response was "seriously? one guy?" Dunn repeatedly makes it about Fred. The Cap Times helped drive that point home. There are MANY others involved. It discredits their efforts to keep this about Fred. Lets focus on the issues.
Fred Mohs does have a agenda with this whole project. A little birdie told me that Fred Mohs tried to buy the Edgewater before and the Faulkners wouldn't sell to him. I think there probably is a bit of animosity there and also an attitude of "if I can't do it, then no one can". It seems like every time one issue seems to be solved in the neighborhoods favor, they come up with something else. Coincidence? Probably not.
ReplyDeleteIf this isn't about Fred Mohs, then why is he the leader of the pack? He always sits in the front row at meetings, speaks as if it were his duty to oppose the project, he meets with the Mayor regarding the project, he even debated Dunn on the radio. I don't see anyone else in the neighborhood that is concerned with as much visibility as him. If it were not for Mohs, would there be such a big issue on the whole project? I don't think so.
Here's a few off the top of my head that have been at almost every meeting, carrying around models, sitting in the front rows, speaking for steering committee, CNI, CNI development committee and Mansion Hill . . .
ReplyDeleteLedell Zellers
Pete Ostlind
Gene Devitt
James McFadden
Adam Plotkin
And several other neighbors have been showing up consistently - I hate to start naming names lest I forget someone but here's a few James Skreney, Jonathan Cooper, John Sheehan.
There are several others from other neighborhoods like MNA, TLNA and JMP and beyond that have also been showing up regularly.
I look forward to hearing from you so I can make that call!
Brenda, why are you so insistent on finding out my identity? Are you not making it about personality here? Sorry, but I do not trust you with my job. You are obviously a partisan.
ReplyDeleteBrenda, why not just ask Mohs to make a public pledge because it is the right thing to do? Can you agree to do so on this forum? Why do you need to call him personally?
BTW, I am not the previous anonymous poster.
Brenda, P
ReplyDeletePlease don't humor this guy or gal. It's a dumb issue which they've now taken over to the TDPForum.
That's a more appropriate place for conspiracy theorists.
BTW, I did your hear that Bob Dunn might have been involved in Jimmy Hoffa's disappearance.
Yeah, Bob Dunn spends a lot of time in New York, which is just across the river from New Jersey where Jimmy Hoffa is supposedly buried in the foundation of the Meadowlands sports complex (which, eerily, doesn't Dunn and Hammes build sports arenas?)
ReplyDeleteI hereby demand that Bob Dunn take a pledge that he is not responsible for Jimmy Hoffa's disappearance. And pledge that he or any of his 17 lobbyists are not responsible for these anonymous conspiracy postings regarding Mohs.
Why is asking for some transparency from Fred Mohs, a property investor, a conspiracy theory?
ReplyDeleteBut obviously Mohs, who reads this blog, is not going to provide it even though it would help the cause of those who oppose the Hammes project.
If by chance Mohs does end up trying to buy the Edgewater property I would hope Brenda and others here will apologize for your uncivil responses to my reasonable request.
All those other people you listed are Mohs' lackeys. It's like a cult, and not a Cult of personality :) Without Mohs' thunder, who would be able to make as much of an issue of this like Fred has? He is the man behind the curtains, pulling the strings, and most of the times, he is out on stage telling his long winded, unrelated stories. It's not 1970 anymore, time to throw away your old underwear. Move into the 2010's, it's nice here.
ReplyDeleteI agree there are some neighbors who have valid points, but without Mohs to incite the riot, would every issue be a fight to the death?
Signed- Not the City Employee Anonymous
Any which way, someone is making money here, everyone except the taxpayer. Quite frankly, I don't care who it is that makes that money, I have no way of knowing what their financial interests are unless they voluntarily disclose them and as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter what oath or pledge anyone makes as they can be broken and excuses made.
ReplyDeleteI do care, however that no matter who makes money on it, about the following:
1. The building is too close to the right of way on Wisconsin Ave and pinches the view.
2. The building is too massive/gross volume too big.
(Moving the building back and/or cutting off a story or two might make a difference)
3. The process on this is atrocious (changing laws, shoving this through without information, etc).
4. TIF, TIF, TIF and TIF (see previous posts) seems sketchy at best.
5. The "public benefits" are exaggerated and we need to make sure they are realized this time.
6. That waterfront ordinance in its new form is as bad, or worse than the original.
7. I don't want to see our city committee process decimated by this.
Finally, I'm not in the habit of doing anonymous posters bidding. I'm just not. And for all I know, you are on of the many, many, many paid staff and lobbyists for the Hammes Company. I quite frankly don't care who you are, but I'm not going to do what you want just cuz you throw a temper tantrum here. You want a pledge from Fred, ask him yourself, its not my deal. And if Fred doesn't want to answer, well, that's his problem. I don't care. I care about making the project the best it can be and the city process issues.
Brenda, it was you who volunteered "to call Fred" if I revealed my identity to you. I did not ask you to my "bidding" in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI now suspect that you already know which way this will go when the Hammes plan goes down and you are now covering your bases when that day comes.
Stop attacking Fred and stick to the point????? But attacking Hammes Co. with unfounded, conspiracty theory antics is okay? WTF? I WISH everyone would stick to the FACTS while discussing this issue.
ReplyDeletePeople need to keep in mind that for Hammes employees to attend meetings and show their support, they have to register as lobbyists. There's nothing sinister about that.
ReplyDeleteThis is my second contribution to a blog. First, I would like to point out that since I don’t type or use a computer my e-mails are printed for me on the back of used letters. Now I am going to come clean.
ReplyDeleteAbout 25 years ago Dick Munz and I were having breakfast at the Edgewater. Even then it was threadbare. After we finished our breakfast, we walked into Augie Faulkner’s office and asked him if he would like to sell the property. He said “no.” That was the end of any attempt to buy the Edgewater.
Someone mentioned the Klinke Cleaners site at the intersection of Schroeder Road and Gammon Road. Our property, Country Meadows which contains 465 apartment units, surrounds the original farmhouse on the corner which was owned by a Middleton couple. The Klinkes proposed a commercial building that would include a Klinke Cleaners with a drive-up around the back of the building that would have been directly opposite the patios and balconies of our property. We and our residents felt that the location of a commercial driveway immediately adjacent to their residences would be a substantial negative and accordingly we opposed the rezoning from agricultural to commercial, and were successful in defeating the project.
At some later point a broker for the owners approached us and we bought the property. We did a substantial rehab on property and rented it to a family. This is the only transaction of that type that I have ever participated in.
I have just remembered that approximately ten or more years ago, Brad Binkowski, Tom Neujahr and I had a meeting with John Larson, President of National Guardian Life, about the possibility of developing on the NGL lakefront. NGL was not ready to consider developing the property, and therefore nothing ever came of the meeting. There was never a discussion of buying the Edgewater.
The foregoing answers what I think are all of the questions that have been raised.
It is my sworn oath that I will not have any financial relationship with any project having to do with the Edgewater Hotel for the rest of my life. If there is another format for the pledge that someone would like to propose, just send it on.
Parenthetically, I am okay with searching out conflicts of interest and questionable motives. My motives have entirely to do with maintaining the City’s promise to preserve the view of Lake Mendota from the end of Wisconsin Avenue (one of the last remaining lake views from the streets radiating from the Capitol) and remaining true to the objectives and standards of the Mansion Hill Historic District.
Thank you Fred. I believe this pledge strengthens your position and those who are fighting the Hammes project.
ReplyDeleteBTW, I am not sure why Brenda thought it was so out of bounds to ask you to make your intentions clear.
So, we'll take Mr. Mohs at his word, but it's undertood that everything Robert Dunn says is a lie? Hmmmm... not sure if I'm following.
ReplyDeleteI think I explained myself repeatedly. I'm not about to let anonymous posters tell me what to do. My blog, my space, my time.
ReplyDeleteI take Fred Mohs at his word.
ReplyDeleteWhat I would like to point out is that even Mr. Mohs is "okay with searching out conflicts of interest and questionable motives" but Brenda gets so blinded by partisanship that she can not appreciate the need to apply an evenhanded approach to both sides.
That is why Brenda often does more harm than good for the causes she fights for.
B.S. Brenda. You jumped on me for even asking Fred Mohs to take the no conflict of interest pledge.
ReplyDeleteI take Robert Dunn at his word.
ReplyDeleteChalk this one up as Fred Mohs looks big and Brenda Konkel looks dumb.
ReplyDeleteI have no intention of letting this space end up like madison.com or thedailypage forum. Anonymous comments have been disabled. Comment away, refrain from name calling and stay on topic, please.
ReplyDelete